Decision
Right To Know CLG and An Bord Pleanála
From Office of the Commissioner for Environmental Information (OCEI)
Case number: OCE-141696-N8S3F4
Published on
From Office of the Commissioner for Environmental Information (OCEI)
Case number: OCE-141696-N8S3F4
Published on
Whether ABP’s decision to give access to the public submissions relevant to the identified case file by way of inspection under article 7(3) of the AIE Regulations was justified.
23 May 2025
1. This case has its background in an application made to ABP by Transport Infrastructure Ireland (TII) for the Railway (Metrolink to Charlemont via Dublin Airport) Order [2022], ABP case reference ABP-314724-22 . There is information related to Metrolink available at: https://www.metrolinkro.ie/
2. On 22 June 2023, the appellant made the following request to ABP:
“…we seek electronic copies of all of the unpublished documents on file 314724, this would include all the observations from the public and statutory bodies and any other infomration [sic] received or generated since the application was made but which ABP has not made available. Please make the requested information available to us by placing it on your website with the other published documents ( https://www.pleanala.ie/en-ie/case/314724 )...”
3. On 20 July 2023, ABP issued its decision. ABP stated that on receipt of the request the Strategic Infrastructure Development (SID) team were contacted. ABP stated that the SID team carry out administrative tasks for the ABP case. ABP commented that as the ABP case was live the SID team has a public file which is available for the public to view at ABP’s offices and which contains all submissions, which are the only publicly available documents not uploaded to ABP’s website (the Public Submissions). ABP stated that the ABP case file is publicly available at the appellant’s discretion by contacting the SID team at sids@pleanala.ie sids@pleanala.ie or at the offices of the relevant local authority, in this case – Dublin City Council.
4. ABP stated that the SID team confirmed the only record not currently available to the public or located on the public file is a memorandum from the Inspector to the Board containing the Inspector’s recommendation regarding the holding of an oral hearing (the Memorandum). ABP noted that it can, at its absolute discretion, hold an oral hearing for a Railway Order application. ABP stated that as a decision had not yet been made it was unable to provide access to this record under AIE. ABP indicated that, therefore, it was refusing that record under article 8(a)(iv) of the AIE Regulations, by reference to section 29 of the Freedom of Information Act 2014.
5. On 21 July 2023, the appellant sought an internal review of ABP’s decision. In doing so, the appellant made the following comments:
• “We asked for electronic copies of the documents, inspection of a paper file in your office is not a substitute for being given electronic copies. Also the EIA Directive and Aarhus Convention require all of the documents made publicly available to be on the website. You also haven't cited a provision of the AIE Regulations for refusing electronic access to submissions .”
• “In relation to the other document, the record does not relate to the proceedings of ABP since that concept only concerns the final stages of decision making and doesn't relate actually relate to the final decision but rather to an oral hearing. For completeness a mere assertion that Section 29 of the FOI Act or Regulation 8(a)(iv) applies cannot ground a refusal .”
• “We are also concerned that it took a full month for the Board to inform us that the submissions could be consulted in its office. This is a breach of the requirement to respond to a request as soon as possible and it seems to us that this delay was deliberate so as to delay access .”
6. On 18 August 2023, ABP issued its internal review decision. ABP noted that the information sought relates to the application made to ABP by TII for the Railway (Metrolink to Charlemont via Dublin Airport) Order [2022], ABP case reference ABP-314724-22.
7. ABP noted that section 40(2) of the Transport (Railway Infrastructure) Act 2001, as amended provides:
“(2)Members of the public may inspect a copy of a draft railway order and accompanying documents deposited under this section free of charge at the times and during the period specified in the notice and may purchase copies of or extracts from any of the documents aforesaid on payment of a fee to the applicant not exceeding the reasonable cost of making such copies or extracts as may be fixed by the applicant .”
8. ABP also referred the appellant to the link to the public notice published by TII on its website which, it stated, refers to public participation and access to documentation on the application - NewspaperNotice_25112022.pdf (metrolink.ie)
9. ABP stated that as the Railway Order application from TII consisted of an Environmental Impact Assessment Report, which, it was obliged under section 146(4)(a) of the Planning and Development Act 2000, as amended, to make available on its website.
10. ABP stated that there is no provision in the Transport (Railway Infrastructure) Act 2001 as amended, for ABP to make submissions received on a railway application available to the public, however, it is ABP’s practice to make available to the Public Submissions received on a strategic infrastructural development application by making them available for inspection at the offices of ABP during office hours in line with the terms of public participation under Section 40(2) of the Transport (Railway Infrastructure) Act 2001, as amended. ABP stated that, as the Railway Order is deemed strategic infrastructure, the submissions are available for inspection by the public by contacting the SID team at sids@pleanala.ie and there is no obligation to publish the submissions on its website. ABP seemingly referred to article 7(3)(a) of the AIE Regulations, noting “access to the information is already available to the public in another form that is accessible ”.
11. Regarding the Memorandum, ABP affirmed its decision to refuse the record under article 8(a)(iv) of the AIE Regulations.
12. ABP also responded to the appellant’s point regarding the timeframe for processing the AIE Request as follows:
“I refer to your inference that the delay in An Bord Pleanála responding to your access request was a deliberate one and wish to remind you that the response by the AIE Officer was within the time allocated to a public authority in the AIE Regulations for such a response, and in this regard, I refer you to Article [7](2)(a) of the AIE Regulations which provides that …. ‘A public authority shall make a decision on a request and, where appropriate, make the information available to the applicant as soon as possible and, at the latest, not later than one month from the date on which such request is received by the public authority concerned.’ Your access request was received by An Bord Pleanála on 22 June 2023 and a response issued to you by the AIE Officer on 20 July 2023, within the time specified .”
13. On 21 August 2023, the appellant submitted an appeal to this Office.
14. I am directed by the Commissioner to carry out a review under article 12(5) of the AIE Regulations. In so doing, I have had regard to the correspondence between ABP and the appellant as outlined above and to correspondence between this Office and both ABP and the appellant on the matter. In addition, I have had regard to:
• the Guidance document provided by the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government on the implementation of the AIE Regulations (the Minister’s Guidance);
• Directive 2003/4/EC (the AIE Directive), upon which the AIE Regulations are based;
• the 1998 United Nations Economic Commission for Europe Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters (the Aarhus Convention); and
• The Aarhus Convention—An Implementation Guide (Second edition, June 2014) (the Aarhus Guide)
15. What follows does not comment or make findings on each and every argument advanced but all relevant points have been considered.
16. In accordance with article 12(5) of the AIE Regulations, my role is to review the public authority’s internal review decision and to affirm, annul or vary it. Where appropriate in the circumstances of an appeal, I will require the public authority to make available environmental information to the appellant.
17. In his submissions to this Office, the appellant disputed ABP’s decision under article 8(a)(iv) of the AIE Regulations on the Memorandum and ABP’s decision under article 7(3) of the AIE Regulations on the Public Submissions not available on ABP’s website. The appellant also disputed the timeframe in which ABP provided its decision, commenting:
• “Regulation 7(2)(a) requires a decision on a request to be made as soon as possible and at the latest not later than one month from the date of receipt of the request…The one-month period is not the “time allocated” to a public authority to answer the request; the one-month period (subject to an exception which does not apply here) is the maximum amount of time allowed (“at the latest”) and performs the important function of triggering an implied refusal if a public authority ignores a request entirely .”
• “This is not a case where there was a requirement to search for information or where there was any degree of complexity or time consuming work involved. The Board knew immediately that this information was in the public domain in hard copy format and waited a month to inform the requestor without explanation or even an awareness of what was required of it .”
• “In this instance the Board could easily have informed R2K as soon as the request was received that the requested public submissions were available in its office and the Council but it waited a month to tell it about this. The Board therefore ignored its obligation to make a decision as soon as possible and has misinterpreted Regulation 7(2)(a) as giving it absolute discretion to make a decision at any time as long as it was within the one month time limit .”
18. Regarding the timeframe, I note that article 7(2)(a) of the AIE Regulations provides “a public authority shall make a decision on a request and, where appropriate, make the information available to the applicant as soon as possible and, at the latest, but subject to paragraph (b) and subarticle (10), not later than one month from the date on which such request is received by the public authority concerned .” Article 7(10) of the AIE Regulations provides a public authority shall, in the performance of its functions under this article, have regard to any timescale specified by the applicant. As indicated by the appellant, he did not specify any timescale in his original request. Had the appellant specified a timescale in his request, the public authority would have been required to have regard to that timescale. While I note the appellant’s comments, ABP issued its original decision within the timeframe provided for under the article 7(2)(a) of the AIE Regulations. Accordingly, I am satisfied that there is no requirement for me to consider this matter further in this case.
19. During the course of this review, following correspondence between this Office and ABP, ABP provided the appellant with electronic copies of the Memorandum and the 321 public submissions identified as relevant to the appellant’s request in April 2025. Accordingly, the Investigator asked the appellant to confirm whether the case could be closed as settled and, if not, for the appellant clarify what it considered remained at issue in the matter. In response, the appellant stated “the appeal is most certainly not settled. The request was made in June 2023 and answered in April 2025. The Board hasn’t explained why the request was refused nor has the Commissioner. ”
20. Regarding the Memorandum that was refused under article 8(a)(iv) of the AIE Regulations, given that that record has now been provided to the appellant, the de novo nature of a review by this Office, and the comments of the High Court in Right to Know CLG v the Commissioner for Environmental Information and the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport [2020 IEHC 392 ] regarding mootness, I am satisfied that the Memorandum does not fall within the scope of this review and it is not necessary for me to consider it further.
21. Regarding the 321 public submissions, those records were not refused by ABP. Instead access was granted in another form or manner under article 7(3) of the AIE Regulations. In light of the appellant’s most recent correspondence to this Office, notwithstanding that electronic copies of the public submissions had since been provided to it electronically by way of file transfer, I understand that it remains unsatisfied with ABP’s decision to give access by way of inspection under article 7(3).
22. In all the circumstances, I am satisfied that the scope of this review solely concerns whether ABP’s decision to give access to the public submissions relevant to the identified case file by way of inspection under article 7(3) of the AIE Regulations was justified.
23. Article 6(1)(e) of the AIE Regulations provides that if an applicant desires access to environmental information in a particular form or manner, the request shall specify the form or manner of access desired. In its original request the appellant stated that it was seeking “electronic copies ” of unpublished documents relevant to an identified casefile. The appellant also asked that the requested information be made available to it by placing the information on ABP’s website. Accordingly, I am satisfied that the appellant specified the form/manner of access desired in accordance with article 6(1)(e) of the AIE Regulations. I also note that in its internal review request, it reiterated that it “asked for electronic copies of the documents, inspection of a paper file in your office is not a substitute for being given electronic copies …”.
24. Article 7(1) of the AIE Regulations provides a public authority shall, notwithstanding any other statutory provision and subject only to the AIE Regulations, make available environmental information that is held by or for them on request.
25. Article 7(3)(a) of the AIE Regulations provides that where a request has been made to a public authority for access to environmental information in a particular form or manner, access shall be given in that form or manner unless (i) the information is already available to the public in another form or manner that is easily accessible or (ii) access in another form or manner would be reasonable. Article 7(3)(b) provides that where a public authority decides to make available environmental information other than in the form or manner specified in the request, the reason therefore shall be given by the public authority in writing.
26. I wish to highlight that article 7(3) of the AIE Regulations can only be considered where a public authority has identified relevant information held by or for it, determined that information should properly be released (i.e. that no exemption provision in article 8 or 9 of the AIE Regulations (subject to article 10) applies), and has then decided to give access to that information other than in the form or manner requested.
27. Article 7(3)(a) of the AIE Regulations transposes part of Article 3(4) of the AIE Directive, which provides that where an applicant requests a public authority to make environmental information available in a specific form or format (including in the form of copies), the public authority shall make it so available unless (a) it is already publicly available in another form or format which is easily accessible by applicants or (b) it is reasonable for the public authority to make it available in another form or format, in which case reasons shall be given for making it available in that form or format.
28. Article 3(4) of the AIE Directive goes on to state “[f]or the purposes of this paragraph, public authorities shall make all reasonable efforts to maintain environmental information held by or for them in forms or formats that are readily reproducible and accessible by computer telecommunications or by other electronic means”. This wording, which is reflective of Article 5(3) of the Aarhus Convention, was not transposed by article 7(3) of the AIE Regulations. However, I do note that article 5(1)(b) of the AIE Regulations states that a public authority shall “make all reasonable efforts to maintain environmental information held by or for it in a manner that is readily reproducible and accessible by information technology or by other electronic means ”.
29. It is important to note that it is not within my powers to examine the implementation of article 5(1)(b) of the AIE Regulations by public authorities generally. However, a public authority’s implementation of article 5(1)(b) of the AIE Regulations may impact its ability to rely on article 7(3) of the AIE Regulations. In cases involving article 7(3) of the AIE Regulations this Office may consider whether the particular information requested is the kind of environmental information that one would expect to be maintained in a manner that is readily reproducible and accessible electronically. Greater implementation of article 5(1)(b) of the AIE Regulations by a public authority, may increase the likelihood that article 7(3) of the AIE Regulations can be relied upon or that information can be obtained by members of the public without the need to submit an AIE Request. It is also of note that, while a public authority can only engage article 7(3) of the AIE Regulations where it has been determined that the information should properly be released under the AIE Regulations, the AIE Regulations are just one access regime and there is nothing in the AIE Regulations which precludes a public authority from providing access to information outside the regime, even if access would be denied as a result of one of the exemptions in the AIE Regulations.
30. The general thrust of the appellant’s position is that ABP’s decision under article 7(3) of the AIE Regulations was not justified. The appellant provided detailed submissions to this Office in support of its position. While I do not propose to repeat them in full here, I can confirm that I have had regard to them.
31. I am satisfied that ABP made a decision at internal review under article 7(3) to give access to (321) Public Submissions not available on its website by way of inspection at its offices by contacting (sids@pleanala.ie). In addition to the detail provided in its original and internal review decisions, set out in the background section above, in its submissions to this Office, ABP provided further details in support of its decision, which I have summarised below:
(a) ABP stated that the manner in which the public has access to application documentation and for public participation in the process on the Railway Order application is set out in the Transport (Railway Infrastructure) Act 2001 and ABP is governed by this legislation in its processing of the case. ABP stated that the legislation places no obligation on ABP to public documentation in electronic form on its website in this railway order application case. ABP noted that the applicant in the case, TII, published a notice on its website and in a newspaper which refers to the public participation and access to documentation on the application. ABP stated that this is in line with Section 40(2) of the Transport (Railway Infrastructure) Act 2001 as amended, which provides:
“(2) Members of the public may inspect a copy of a draft railway order and accompanying documents deposited under this section free of charge at the times and during the period specified in the notice and may purchase copies or extracts from any of the documents aforesaid on payment of a fee to the applicant not exceeding the reasonable cost of making such copies or extracts as may be fixed by the applicant.
(3) A person may, not later than 30 days after the end of the period specified in subsection (2), make submissions in writing to the Minister in relation to the proposed railway order or the likely effects on the environment of the proposed railway works.”
(b) ABP stated that it is not obliged to publish submissions it receives on a Railway Order application to the public; however, it is its practice on strategic infrastructural applications like this Railway Order to keep a hard copy of the submissions received in accordance with section 40(3) of the Transport (Railway Infrastructure) Act as amended on a public file which is open to inspection by the public at the offices of ABP during office hours. ABP stated that it received a total of 321 submissions on this case.
(c) ABP stated that the appellant was not refused access to the public file. ABP stated that the appellant was informed that the public file including submissions was available to view by contacting the SIDs team in ABP at sids@pleanala.ie . ABP submitted that this is in accordance with article 7(3) of the AIE Regulations. ABP stated that access to the information is already available to the public in another form that is accessible.
(d) ABP further commented “[w]hile the Railway Order application is a live case with An Bord Pleanála, access to documentation, other than the submissions mentioned in the previous paragraph, is only available, at the discretion of the Board, to participants in the application who made a submission to the Board under section 40(3) of the Transport Act and not to the general public. Access to documentation only becomes available to the public when the application is formally decided by the Board. This is set out in legislation under section 146 of the Planning and Development Act 2000, as amended, which states as follows:
S.146(5) Within 3 days following the making of a decision on any matter falling to be decided by it in performance of a function under or transferred by this Act or under any other enactment, the documents relating to the matter—
(a) shall be made available by the Board for inspection at the offices of the Board by members of the public, and
(b) may be made available by the Board for such inspection—
(i) at any other place, or
(ii) by electronic means, as the Board considers appropriate.
S.146(6) Copies of the documents referred to in subsection (5) and of extracts from such documents shall be made available for purchase at the offices of the Board, or such other places as the Board may determine, for a fee not exceeding the reasonable cost of making the copy.
It is An Bord Pleanála opinion that section 146 above clearly sets out the manner in which the public has access to the Board’s case files.”
32. Subsequent to those submissions, this Office wrote to ABP asking whether, notwithstanding its decision that article 7(3) of the AIE Regulations is relevant to this case, it would be in a position to administratively release electronic copies of the (321) public submissions. In response, ABP stated that it had recently introduced ShareFile, a file-sharing platform which facilitates the provision of records to requestors in a more accessible and efficient manner. It stated that in this regard the Public Access and SID teams were contacted, and they will provide the appellant with a copy of the submissions requested. It stated that as the files have already been scanned are readily available, ABP will not impose a fee for providing the records.
33. Regarding ABP’s reliance on article 7(3) of the AIE Regulations, this Office also asked a number of queries. This Office asked ABP it to specify the relevant limb(s) of article 7(3) of the AIE Regulations being relied upon and to provide reasons for doing so. In response, ABP reiterated: “[ABP] is not legally obliged to publish submissions received on a Railway Order application. However, it is [ABP’s] established practice, in the case of strategic infrastructural applications such as this Railway Order, to maintain a hard copy of the submissions received in accordance with section 40(3) of the Transport (Railway Infrastructure) Act 2001, as amended. These submissions are kept on a public file available for inspection by the public at the offices of ABP during normal office hours. A total of 321 submissions were received in relation to this case. The AIE Officer invoked the provisions of Article 7(3) of the AIE Regulations which states ‘(3)(a) Where a request has been made to a public authority for access to environmental information in a particular form or manner, access shall be given in that form or manner unless— (i) the information is already available to the public in another form or manner that is easily accessible, or (ii) access in another form or manner would be reasonable.’ At the time of the request, the requester was invited to view the submissions at [ABP’s] offices, in line with the practice described above. However, [ABP] has recently introduced the use of ShareFile for document sharing and is now please to inform the Commissioner that a copy of the requested record will be provided to the requester electronically in due course.”
34. This Office asked ABP to clarify whether the SID team / ABP holds electronic copies of the public submissions at issue. In response, ABP stated “[ABP] holds scanned copies of all the submissions concerned. As these documents have already been scanned, [ABP] has offered the requester the option of receiving access to the submissions electronically through ShareFile, thereby ensuring easier and more convenient access to the material requested.”
35. This Office asked ABP to clarify what steps would be involved if the appellant contacted the SID team (e.g. what would the process/procedure be if the appellant emailed the SID team). In response, ABP stated “[t]he SID team are responsible for processing cases which have yet to be decided by the Board and handle any correspondence or requests associated with these cases. The Public Access team will provide copies of records on decided cases to those who request these services. When ShareFile was set up for Public Access services, an arrangement was put in place that if a requester sought records from a live SID public file, public access could send the requester these records having access to the ShareFile facility. Notwithstanding the above points, if the applicant wishes to contact the SID team requesting a copy of these submissions, the SID team would check if an electronic copy existed and if not outline if any particulars were required to proceed with the request. The SID team would then liaise with the Public Access department to provide the copy of the file via ShareFile.”
36. This Office asked whether the appellant would be able to make/receive electronic copies and/or hard copies of the public submissions when inspected/viewed as ABP’s offices, having contacted the SID team. In response, ABP referred to its answer at paragraph 35 above with regards to an electronic copy and stated a copy of the submissions would be provided electronically if requested in this case without a fee. It stated that a fee may be incurred for a hard copy, noting “producing a hard copy would involve photocopying 321 submissions, therefore, labour and paper costs may be incurred. It referred to section 146(6) of the Planning and Development Act.
37. This Office asked whether the appellant would be asked to sign any terms / conditions prior to viewing the file at ABP offices and/or obtaining copies of the submissions (in either electronic or hardcopy format). In response, ABP stated that it would not require the appellant to sign any forms prior to viewing or obtaining the information.
38. This Office asked ABP to clarify whether other than the Memorandum and the public submissions any further information not published to ABP’s website coming within the scope of the appellant’s original request dated 22 June 2023 exists. ABP stated that the Senior Executive Officer of SID confirmed that the only records not available on the website at the time of the request were the Memorandum and the public submissions.
39. As outlined above, article 7(3)(b) requires “where a public authority decides to make available environmental information other than in the form or manner specified in the request, the reason therefore shall be given by the public in writing” and Article 3(4) of the AIE Directive provides “the reasons for a refusal to make information available in full or in part, in the form or format requested shall be provided to the applicant…”
40. The duty to give reasons, which arises not only by virtue of the AIE Regulations and AIE Directive, is recognised generally as a core principle of administrative law and a fundamental element of constitutional justice (see, for example, Meadows v Minister for Justice [2010] IESC 3 and Balz & Anor v An Bord Pleanála & Ors [2019] IESC 90). It is clear that requesters should be provided reasons by public authorities for their decisions. The duty to give reasons arises so that requesters can take a view as to whether they consider the decision of a public authority is justified, or whether they wish to exercise their entitlement for review.
41. In my view, ABP did not provide adequate reasons in its decisions or submissions to this Office for its reliance on article 7(3)(a) of the AIE Regulations in giving access to the public submissions relevant to the identified case file by way of inspection, in accordance with article 7(3)(b) of the AIE Regulations. I have set out above the detail included in the decisions and submissions to this Office, and acknowledge in particular that ABP:
• Referred to the manner in which the public has access to application documentation and for public participation in the process on the Railway Order application under the Transport (Railway Infrastructure) Act 2001 (notwithstanding ABP’s comments that it is “governed by this legislation in the processing of the case” and “[t]he legislation places no obligation on [ABP] to publish documentation in electronic form on its website in this railway order application case”, I note it is separate legislation to the access regime provided for under the AIE Regulations).
• Referred to the notice published by TII on its website/in the newspaper and referring to section 40(2) of the Transport (Railway Infrastructure) Act 2001 regarding the ability to inspect and purchase certain documents during a specified period.
• Referred to the fact that it is not obliged to publish submissions received on a Railway Order application to the public, however, it is its practice to have a hard copy of the submissions received under section 40(3) of the Transport (Railway Infrastructure) Act 2001, on a public file which is open to inspection by the public at its offices during office hours.
• Stated that it had not refused access to the public file and that “access to the information is already available to the public in another form that is accessible”
• Stated that the appellant would not be required to sign any forms prior to viewing or obtaining the information.
• Provided details of its ability to provide electronic copies through its ShareFile system, which I understand was not in place at the time of its original and internal review decisions.
42. However, ABP provided no further details regarding its application of article 7(3) of the AIE Regulations in giving access to the public submissions by way of inspection, including no assessment of the “easily accessible” nature of giving access by way of inspection at its Office’s in accordance with article 7(3)(a)(i) and no assessment of the “reasonableness” in accordance with article 7(3)(a)(ii). In addition, other than noting that copies could be purchased, ABP gave no specific explanation regarding the ability to make/receive copies (electronic, or otherwise) of or the details of any fee payable for the public submissions documents when inspected/viewed at its Office at the time of its original/internal review decisions.
43. As indicated above, having regard to the details contained in ABP’s decisions and submissions to this Office, I am not satisfied that ABP gave adequate reasons for its reliance on article 7(3) of the AIE Regulations to give access by way of inspection and to explain why it decided not to provide the appellant with electronic copies of the submissions at issue as requested under the AIE Regulations (either by way of its website or otherwise). I note that this was subsequently done by use of ShareFile, which is a common method of sharing files electronically, and I do not see why the files could not have been shared in this manner at the time of the appellant’s request.
44. In the circumstances, I annul ABP’s decision to give access to the public submissions relevant to the identified case file by way of inspection under article 7(3) of the AIE Regulations. As noted, during the course of this review ABP provided “electronic copies” of the (321) public submissions to the appellant by way of file transfer. Accordingly, I direct no further action to be taken.
45. Having carried out a review under article 12(5) of the AIE Regulations, I hereby annul ABP’s decision to give access to the public submissions relevant to the identified case file by way of inspection under article 7(3) of the AIE Regulations. As electronic copies of the submissions have subsequently been provided to the appellant, I direct no further action to be taken.
46. A party to the appeal or any other person affected by this decision may appeal to the High Court on a point of law from the decision. Such an appeal must be initiated not later than two months after notice of the decision was given to the person bringing the appeal.
______________________
Julie O’Leary
On behalf of the Commissioner for Environmental Information